Social science has few “laws” or even consistent rules. All social science theories are false to some extent.
Some useful ways to assess theories are:
France has revolutions in 1789. Then again in 1830. And then 1848
Napoleon III stages a “self-coup” in 1851 and rules as a dictator for the next 22 years
France forms a new government following Napoleon’s capture, but (comparatively radical) Paris doesn’t get much say in the process.
The new legislative assembly is dominated by conservatives. The capital is relocated to Versailles and France signs an armistice with Prussia.
Parisians refuse to disarm, and declare a parallel government in March 1871.
By May 1871, the national gov. suppresses the rebellion
The entire commune lasts 2 months.
10,000 - 20,000 dead, nearly 50,000 arrested.
The howling, swarming, ragged crowd which invaded the Tuileries during the revolution of 1848 did not lay hands on any of the objects that excited its astonishment, and one of which would have meant bread for many days. - Gustav LeBon
For LeBon: crowd psychology is not like individual psychology
Crowds allow anonymity, which makes people feel less restrained.
Unconscious/instinctive drives take precedence over conscious ones (LeBon views race, in particular, as an important source of these drives)
They become highly suggestible, akin to being hypnotized, and they’re prone to impulsiveness and irritability.
As countries democratize, crowds become central to politics
The study of crowd psychology (particularly pathological and violent behaviors) is revived in the early/mid 20th century. (why?)
These 20th century theories can be classed in two broad paradigms:
Blumer’s “Elementary Collective Action”
Example: Relative Deprivation
…relative deprivation, is the basic precondition for civil strife of any kind…the more widespread and intense deprivation is among members of a population, the greater is the magnitude of strife in one or another form
— Gurr, T. (1968). A causal model of civil strife: a comparative analysis using new indices1. American political science review, 62(4), 1104-1124.
Crowd psychology is distinct from individual psychology. Crowds are “transformative”
Crowds are more driven by emotion than reason, and are more spontaneous than deliberate, and more expressive than strategic, and they’re gullible and easily misled.
Crowds are mobilized by social strain and societal breakdown, and participants are more likely to come from groups that are aggrieved, or less integrated into society.
Are there scenarios where this makes sense? Are there scenarios where it doesn’t?
Why does this start to see sustained pushback in the later 60s and 70s?
Strain theories emphasize the role of disorder, “anomie” and societal breakdown, to explain contentious behavior, but:
At least in some cases, being part of organizations and networks is a positive predictor of participating in contentious behavior.
“Anti-social crowds” are an oxymoron. Sustained collective action requires people who can play nice with others.
Crowd characterized as reverting to “animal instincts”, but:
“Stampede” was more accurately described as a progressive crowd collapse: people fell when a door collapsed, and then others fell on top of them.
Most victims reported helping others, receiving help, or witnessing strangers helping someone else.
Cultural norms (particularly gender norms) played a predictable role.
Strain theories emphasize the role of social strain, grievance, and anomie, but:
Does LeBon’s characterization ring true?
The Communards are organized and embedded in local networks and institutions. The rebellion is a product of organization, not chaos.
Their actions deliberately draw on culturally relevant symbols and behaviors, not on “animal instinct”
They’re violent and irrational… but so is everyone else.
Sustained collective resistance often highly organized and sophisticated, and people maintain some self control even in a riot.
Forms of collective action are historically contingent and adapt to cultural norms, policing, government structure etc. They’re clearly not pure instinct.
Far from being anonymous, participants often know each other! Being part of a social network makes you more likely to protest.
Unrest and deprivation are not neatly correlated (at a minimum, “strain” alone can’t explain rebellion)
Collective behavior tradition remains influential, but see serious challenges in the 1960s.
Contentious behavior is no less rational (in the narrow rational-choice sense) than individual behavior.
Contemporary theories of contentious behavior generally place more emphasis on:
The role of organization, structure, and resources in explaining contentious behavior over the role of social strain or grievance
The social and political context for collective action, over studying “crowds” on their own; continuity between conventional state-approved political behavior and non-conventional forms.
The importance of rationality over pathologies (even for extreme behaviors like genocide or terrorism)